What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I haven't been around lately and even this will be a "hit and run" post, but has the article "How American Politics Went Insane" from The Atlantic been discussed yet?   Seems to be a pretty solid defense of Tim's political perspective while throwing most of you, and to some extent me under the bus.   Mostly it says (not directly) we need more Hillary's and less outsiders if we ever want Washington to work again.   That many of the cures (reforms)  that have been put in place are far worst in practice than the symptoms they addressed.  That those that sit "above it all" are the problem.  And more.
Click to expand...
On this score, I'm fine with Tim's point of view as long as fellow Hillary supporters would own up to it as true or outright criticize it as false (for instance his view is that Hillary views Wall Street as a constituency, yet nary a criticism of that comes from the Hillaryites here). I personally have never been an insider/outsider, DEMe/GOPe guy, but I do believe that outside fresh perspective is helpful (and I will take governors where that is concerned), reform is absolutely essential, and I think that insider-ism is fine so long as you allow for maximum transparency. Do your insider thing, you just have a duty to be completely honest with the American people about what that is.

- eta - I can't help but notice the author completely evades mentioning Hillary. How did he do that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
(((Harry Enten))) ‏@ForecasterEnten 1h1 hour ago

Clinton's clearest path to winning right now is Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia without Florida/Ohio.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-how-clinton-could-win-without-florida-and-ohio/
Click to expand...
More than one avenue.

NM/NV/VA/NC.

CO/NH/VA.

Gee that's weird VA appears in both. I wonder if they thought of that.

- eta - This is so over it's stupid, it's totally robbed us politics geeks the fun of tracking the race. We kept saying hey let's wait for the real polls to come in and now that they're here there's little to track, Hillary's winning all of these states IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer said:
Well, that's pretty much what Trumo said when he was blasting Hillary about Mateen with Foley sitting behind him.

Now for the rest of the post, you are assuming that if Trump's operates campaign operates that way, Hillary's does too. Maybe it does. However, it would not be the first nor the most glaring difference between the two campaigns if it doesn't
Click to expand...
Ha. I think the key here is that the initial charge that just because Hillary's backdrop included Mateen Sr. then therefore obviously she is a closeted terror lover is a crock.

However you're right I forgot the first rule of talking Trump and that is that normal reason and logic do not apply.

Here's Trump in an interview with NewsMax talking about hey what a great guy Foley is.

Unlike Hillary/Mateen, Donald actually had previous contact with Foley as he gave thousands to him over several elections and he certainly seems to know him from that snip there.

 
Megaton said:
SameSongNDance said:
There are definitely a lot of legitimate criticisms of Clinton but this whole "she suffering from head trauma" shtick being pushed by the right is  :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: .

Both candidates are 70 years old, so statistically they are both more likely than average to become ill/pass away but that's about it.

Aesthetically, Trump looks like a man with balogna meat coursing through his veins, so if I had to assume someone was less healthy it'd be him.
Click to expand...
That is probably the most convincing case for Trump I have heard. 
Click to expand...
The Mortadella Candidate.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I don't think so. Trump gave money to Foley something like 6-8 times when he was a Congressman. This is a double edged sword for Hillary fans because I could totally see Foley getting special entree to sit behind Trump, so if special permission or invitation is required to sit behind a candidate then it is. Or it isn't for both. However I joked earlier before Foley that Trump liked to have his own diverse backdrop and for him that means 40 old white guys, and Foley certainly fits that. Still I can't believe these campaigns aren't at least taking names of the people sitting behind the candidates, have some awareness of who these people are. It was a rare sloppy move by Hillary's professional staff. 
Click to expand...
Mateen was a donor and politically active.  He has had his picture taken with congressmen etc.

Foley is a former congressman and despite being disgraced, I'm sure he has numerous connections to the state party.

both campaigns failed to properly vet these people.  Mateen has (finally) been denounced - took too long, and Foley needs to be denounced, as well (taking too long).

 
Mateen was a donor and politically active. He has had his picture taken with congressmen etc.

Foley is a former congressman and despite being disgraced, I'm sure he has numerous connections to the state party.



both campaigns failed to properly vet these people. Mateen has (finally) been denounced - took too long, and Foley needs to be denounced, as well (taking too long).
Click to expand...
Clinton disavowed Mateen the day after the event. How was that too long?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove! said:
Mateen was a donor and politically active.  He has had his picture taken with congressmen etc.

Foley is a former congressman and despite being disgraced, I'm sure he has numerous connections to the state party.

both campaigns failed to properly vet these people.  Mateen has (finally) been denounced - took too long, and Foley needs to be denounced, as well (taking too long).
Click to expand...
This is some nonsense.  Anyone who is sitting back there has been through a security checkpoint including a metal detector to ensure safety, which is really the only thing those people need to be vetted for. Campaigns have far better things to do than to demand ID and perform background checks on every single person who might be seated within a certain distance of a candidate at a campaign event.  You're talking about dozens and dozens of people almost every day, literally thousands of needless checks a month.  Why?  To satisfy voters with comically misplaced priorities when it comes to candidates for office?  What possible reason would there be for anyone to legitimately care about this?  The fact that nobody's ever cared about it before this ####show of a campaign should tell you all you need to know.

 
Obama beat Romney fairly easily and had about a 3pt lead.  Hillary has more than double that.  Trump is on a downward trajectory and has little hope of bringing in new votes.

As long as Hillary keeps this thing in cruise control, it's a rout.

 
Gr00vus said:
Those are some serious work overs. Highlights the fact that Trump is a lousy candidate based on policy alone. I think people have forgotten that due to the heavy layers of deranged Trump has been laying on lately.
Click to expand...
Sanders would be 10 to 15 points

 
Gr00vus said:
Those are some serious work overs. Highlights the fact that Trump is a lousy candidate based on policy alone. I think people have forgotten that due to the heavy layers of deranged Trump has been laying on lately.
Click to expand...
Yup, and the beauty of having Sanders go at him is that he can't fire back if he wants to have any hope of winning the election.  Winning over some disillusioned Sanders supporters, or at a minimum convincing them to stay home, is essential for him at this point.

I bet he snaps and goes after him anyway at some point.

 
jamny said:
Could Hillary possibly survive if Wikileaks exposed that she knew about, and lied to Congress about, guns being run through Libya on their way to rebels in Syria and into the hands of ISIS?
Click to expand...
The way this Trump campaign has been acting. She would still win. 

 
Could Hillary possibly survive if Wikileaks exposed that she knew about, and lied to Congress about, guns being run through Libya on their way to rebels in Syria and into the hands of ISIS?
Click to expand...
There's not much meat on that bone. You've got Rand Paul proclaiming, "many people have been saying that ships are leaving Libya which may have weapons on them!" and then Hillary saying "I don't have any information on that." What is WikiLeaks going to prove? I doubt they're going to uncover an email where Hillary explicitly mentions ships with weapons on them.

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
We'd still be facing a potential President Pence and that might be the worst scenario of all.
Click to expand...
Much like Sanders supporters who are still holding out hope, I will continue to envision Romney riding in on a white horse to save the day. I know it won't happen but it's something to cling on to get through this nightmare.

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
I leave words out of my posts all the time, but I think we need 'ahead' or 'behind' here
Click to expand...
He'd be ahead

sanders represents change in a time when Only 31 % say we are heading in the right direction

he scores well on honesty, while Clinton scores dismally

favorable/unfavorable much better for Sanders

and even in the primaries, every poll with a hypothetical sanders v any hypothetical R, had him doing better than Clinton.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I'm gonna say yes.  
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think it's going to matter. I think we're getting to the point where Hillary could be filmed laughing while clubbing a seal and running on an animal rights platform and still win in a rout. Nominating Trump was the nail in the coffin for the Republicans, he's the weaker candidate vs. Hillary by a mile, which is saying so much in and of itself. She runs away with this once the votes start being counted. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yup, and the beauty of having Sanders go at him is that he can't fire back if he wants to have any hope of winning the election.  Winning over some disillusioned Sanders supporters, or at a minimum convincing them to stay home, is essential for him at this point.

I bet he snaps and goes after him anyway at some point.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sure "Crazy Bernie" will be tweeted shortly.

Tough matchup for Trump. HRC can do her backdoor pandering to the rich while Bernie stumps for the little guy, Trump would have to be able to deliver some sort of message exposing the duplicity in that. He doesn't seem capable of it, and a decent amount of his support probably wouldn't catch the subtlety anyway. Connecting dots isn't his or their thing it seems.

 
Joe Summer said:
There's not much meat on that bone. You've got Rand Paul proclaiming, "many people have been saying that ships are leaving Libya which may have weapons on them!" and then Hillary saying "I don't have any information on that." What is WikiLeaks going to prove? I doubt they're going to uncover an email where Hillary explicitly mentions ships with weapons on them.
Click to expand...
I won't believe it until there's proof but it's scary to think that people believe it wouldn't matter even if true.  Sad times we are in.

 
jamny said:
I won't believe it until there's proof but it's scary to think that people believe it wouldn't matter even if true.  Sad times we are in.
Click to expand...
My logic behind my previous post a few above. Nobody to blame but the party for throwing Trump out there. He's so bad that if things coming out of the WikiLeaks about Hillary are true, it won't even matter when people go out to vote because he's the alternative.

 
Joe Summer said:
There's not much meat on that bone. You've got Rand Paul proclaiming, "many people have been saying that ships are leaving Libya which may have weapons on them!" and then Hillary saying "I don't have any information on that." What is WikiLeaks going to prove? I doubt they're going to uncover an email where Hillary explicitly mentions ships with weapons on them.
Click to expand...
Rand Paul? The guy who compared healthcare to slavery.

“With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have to realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.”

 
Gr00vus said:
squistion said:
Go Bernie!

Common Dreams ‏@commondreams 7m7 minutes ago

In Tweetstorm, #BernieSanders Eviscerates #DonaldTrump on Trade and Taxes

http://ow.ly/6jVS303bAug
Click to expand...
Those are some serious work overs. Highlights the fact that Trump is a lousy candidate based on policy alone. I think people have forgotten that due to the heavy layers of deranged Trump has been laying on lately.
Click to expand...
Remember when they said Bernie would have to go through a vetting nightmare should he have been the nominee?  It was absurd and mocked then and should continue to be mocked.  The self proclaimed socialist would have been just fine as some of us said then.....the biggest missed opportunity by the people in my lifetime.  

 
The Commish said:
Remember when they said Bernie would have to go through a vetting nightmare should he have been the nominee?  It was absurd and mocked then and should continue to be mocked.  The self proclaimed socialist would have been just fine as some of us said then.....the biggest missed opportunity by the people in my lifetime.  
Click to expand...
So far. I do have the caveat that his economic policies needed some serious work. The principles were good, but what he'd put out so far in terms of implementation wasn't going to hold up.

 
The Commish said:
Remember when they said Bernie would have to go through a vetting nightmare should he have been the nominee?  It was absurd and mocked then and should continue to be mocked.  The self proclaimed socialist would have been just fine as some of us said then.....the biggest missed opportunity by the people in my lifetime.  
Click to expand...
Quite a strawman here. I don't remember anyone saying there would be a "vetting nightmare." Pretty sure almost everyone would say that he's a good man who seems unlikely to have any horrifying skeletons in his closet that would kill him during the general election vetting.  There were pundits and posters, myself included, pointing out (correctly) that Sanders' general election numbers at the time might be misleading since he hadn't been put through the rigors of a real, sustained negative national campaign, but that's not remotely the same thing.

By the way, posts like that were seriously outnumbered (like 100 to 1) by posts pointing out that Trump was closing in on Clinton and a real threat and that therefore we need to nominate Sanders to ensure that Trump would lose. You gonna take those gloom and doom posts to task while you're at it now that we appear to be heading for an easy Clinton win, or is this "I told you so" tour a one-way thing?

 
TobiasFunke said:
Quite a strawman here. I don't remember anyone saying there would be a "vetting nightmare." Pretty sure almost everyone would say that he's a good man who seems unlikely to have any horrifying skeletons in his closet that would kill him during the general election vetting.  There were pundits and posters, myself included, pointing out (correctly) that Sanders' general election numbers at the time might be misleading since he hadn't been put through the rigors of a real, sustained negative national campaign, but that's not remotely the same thing.

By the way, posts like that were seriously outnumbered (like 100 to 1) by posts pointing out that Trump was closing in on Clinton and a real threat and that therefore we need to nominate Sanders to ensure that Trump would lose. You gonna take those gloom and doom posts to task while you're at it now that we appear to be heading for an easy Clinton win, or is this "I told you so" tour a one-way thing?
Click to expand...
First....I never thought Trump was a real threat.  Yeah, he made it further than I ever thought, but I still never saw/see him as a legit threat, so don't ask me to defend those people.  I called them absurd then and I call them absurd now.  Use the term "sustained negative national campaign" in lieu of "vetting nightmare" if you want then.  I don't see a substantial difference.  Given Trump was his opponent, neither of those terms were ever going to apply.  Trump's approach has never been typical political games...it's always been social.  This is why I thought, and I said such then, that this notion that Bernie was going to be politically exposed on a national stage was silly.  There were two rather popular posters of this thread who said Bernie could not sustain the scrutiny that the GOP was going to throw at him during the general election (use whatever phrase you want to describe that...doesn't matter to me) including several times once it was clear that Trump was going to be the nominee.  It was nothing more than fear talking along with a little ignorance as to what was going on right in front of them.

Honestly, I don't know what your particular view was on Bernie nationally TF.  You weren't very vocal as I can recall, so from my perspective, you aren't really part of the group I was referring to.  You can rather late to the discussion from what I can recall.

 
jamny said:
Could Hillary possibly survive if Wikileaks exposed that she knew about, and lied to Congress about, guns being run through Libya on their way to rebels in Syria and into the hands of ISIS?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what could be more startling than the FBI wanted to open a criminal investigation into the Foundation and was shot down by the DOJ, apparently not once but twice, including three field offices.

 
The Commish said:
First....I never thought Trump was a real threat.  Yeah, he made it further than I ever thought, but I still never saw/see him as a legit threat, so don't ask me to defend those people.  I called them absurd then and I call them absurd now.  Use the term "sustained negative national campaign" in lieu of "vetting nightmare" if you want then.  I don't see a substantial difference.  Given Trump was his opponent, neither of those terms were ever going to apply.  Trump's approach has never been typical political games...it's always been social.  This is why I thought, and I said such then, that this notion that Bernie was going to be politically exposed on a national stage was silly.  There were two rather popular posters of this thread who said Bernie could not sustain the scrutiny that the GOP was going to throw at him during the general election (use whatever phrase you want to describe that...doesn't matter to me) including several times once it was clear that Trump was going to be the nominee.  It was nothing more than fear talking along with a little ignorance as to what was going on right in front of them.

Honestly, I don't know what your particular view was on Bernie nationally TF.  You weren't very vocal as I can recall, so from my perspective, you aren't really part of the group I was referring to.  You can rather late to the discussion from what I can recall.
Click to expand...
My bad on the bolded- I figured you were kind of talking to me since I'd made the argument about him not having been subjected to negative campaigning (btw my view is I like him a lot and I would have voted for him if the race hadn't been over when I voted).

As for the difference between a negative campaign and a vetting nightmare, I think it's mostly just a difference of degrees.  My argument was that you couldn't really compare his head to heads v Trump with Clinton's without accounting for the fact that she's been dragged through the mud for 20+ years and he really never has been but would be if he won the nomination. Although of course there's less mud to drag him through, not that it would stop Trump.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I have no idea what could be more startling than the FBI wanted to open a criminal investigation into the Foundation and was shot down by the DOJ, apparently not once but twice, including three field offices.
Click to expand...
Aren't they still going ahead with it despite DOJ objections?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I have no idea what could be more startling than the FBI wanted to open a criminal investigation into the Foundation and was shot down by the DOJ, apparently not once but twice, including three field offices.
Click to expand...
Has this been reported by any non-right wing media?  I'm curious as to whether anyone sought an explanation, if it actually happened.  Google is of course no help because it just regurgitates the Breitbarts of the world.

ETA:  Found it on CNN:

Early this year as the investigation into Clinton's private email server was in full swing, several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, according to a law enforcement official. At the time, DOJ declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn't sufficient evidence to open a case.
Click to expand...
Seems reasonable to me. They asked about it and DOJ said they'd already looked and couldn't find anything, which is what you'd expect since you'd need actual evidence of quid pro quo to bring criminal charges :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
The Commish said:
First....I never thought Trump was a real threat.  Yeah, he made it further than I ever thought, but I still never saw/see him as a legit threat, so don't ask me to defend those people.  I called them absurd then and I call them absurd now.  Use the term "sustained negative national campaign" in lieu of "vetting nightmare" if you want then.  I don't see a substantial difference.  Given Trump was his opponent, neither of those terms were ever going to apply.  Trump's approach has never been typical political games...it's always been social.  This is why I thought, and I said such then, that this notion that Bernie was going to be politically exposed on a national stage was silly.  There were two rather popular posters of this thread who said Bernie could not sustain the scrutiny that the GOP was going to throw at him during the general election (use whatever phrase you want to describe that...doesn't matter to me) including several times once it was clear that Trump was going to be the nominee.  It was nothing more than fear talking along with a little ignorance as to what was going on right in front of them.

Honestly, I don't know what your particular view was on Bernie nationally TF.  You weren't very vocal as I can recall, so from my perspective, you aren't really part of the group I was referring to.  You can rather late to the discussion from what I can recall.
Click to expand...
My bad on the bolded- I figured you were kind of talking to me since I'd made the argument about him not having been subjected to negative campaigning (btw my view is I like him a lot and I would have voted for him if the race hadn't been over when I voted).

As for the difference between a negative campaign and a vetting nightmare, I think it's mostly just a difference of degrees.  My argument was that you couldn't really compare his head to heads v Trump with Clinton's without accounting for the fact that she's been dragged through the mud for 20+ years and he really never has been but would be if he won the nomination. Although of course there's less mud to drag him through, not that it would stop Trump.
Click to expand...
Ah....yeah, you aren't part of what I was talking about.  I was and am talking about the notion that the GOP machine (later Trump) was going to chew Bernie up and spit him out politically because he was an "unknown" nationally and that he embraced being a socialist.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Has this been reported by any non-right wing media?  I'm curious as to whether anyone sought an explanation, if it actually happened.  Google is of course no help because it just regurgitates the Breitbarts of the world.

ETA:  Found it on CNN:

Seems reasonable to me. They asked about it and DOJ said they'd already looked and couldn't find anything, which is what you'd expect since you'd need actual evidence of quid pro quo to bring criminal charges :shrug:
Click to expand...
Well as for non RW media, yeah CNN. They were devoting time to it side by side with Der Orangendrumpf's assassination comments a couple nights ago. I will take a look when I get a chance.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Quite a strawman here. I don't remember anyone saying there would be a "vetting nightmare." Pretty sure almost everyone would say that he's a good man who seems unlikely to have any horrifying skeletons in his closet that would kill him during the general election vetting.  There were pundits and posters, myself included, pointing out (correctly) that Sanders' general election numbers at the time might be misleading since he hadn't been put through the rigors of a real, sustained negative national campaign, but that's not remotely the same thing.

By the way, posts like that were seriously outnumbered (like 100 to 1) by posts pointing out that Trump was closing in on Clinton and a real threat and that therefore we need to nominate Sanders to ensure that Trump would lose. You gonna take those gloom and doom posts to task while you're at it now that we appear to be heading for an easy Clinton win, or is this "I told you so" tour a one-way thing?
Click to expand...
I didn't say vetting nightmare, but I did point out that he hadn't been vetted by the national media, nor had he been subject to attacks by the GOP (in fact Ted Cruz, Trump and a few others presented Bernie as the better candidate for Democrats). I also pointed out that Hillary had pretty much pulled her punches as she needed the Sanders voters in November and never player the Socialist card, which would have been the killer (as referenced by the annual Gallup poll I cited numerous times).

If Bernie had been the nominee, we would be hearing from Trump, everyday, that the choice is between making America great again, or electing a Socialist/Communist and given the views of most of the American public towards Socialism, it would make it a very close race (the problem being that there is not enough time before the general election to educate the public that Democratic Socialism is not the same as Socialism/Communism). I honestly don't think Bernie would be doing much better in the polls at this point than Hillary.

 
squistion said:
I didn't say vetting nightmare, but I did point out that he hadn't been vetted by the national media, nor had he been subject to attacks by the GOP (in fact Ted Cruz, Trump and a few others presented Bernie as the better candidate for Democrats). I also pointed out that Hillary had pretty much pulled her punches as she needed the Sanders voters in November and never player the Socialist card, which would have been the killer (as referenced by the annual Gallup poll I cited numerous times).

If Bernie had been the nominee, we would be hearing from Trump, everyday, that the choice is between making America great again, or electing a Socialist/Communist and given the views of most of the American public towards Socialism, it would make it a very close race (the problem being that there is not enough time before the general election to educate the public that Democratic Socialism is not the same as Socialism/Communism). I honestly don't think Bernie would be doing much better in the polls at this point than Hillary.
Click to expand...
I guess doubling down is an option if you choose.  For this to happen, it would require Trump to run a political campaign which would be a complete 180 from how he's approached this campaign from a social perspective.  You'd have to believe that Trump would be capable of being completely different from what he is today.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top